nmm 22 4500ICPSR25423MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150331s2009 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR25423MiAaIMiAaI
Court Workforce Racial Diversity and Racial Justice in Criminal Case Outcomes in the United States, 2000-2005
[electronic resource]
Geoff Ward
,
Amy Farrell
,
Danielle Rousseau
2009-06-25Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2009ICPSR25423NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-31.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether workgroup racial composition is related to sentence outcomes generally, and racial differences in sentencing in particular, across federal districts. This collection contains information on federal court district characteristics. Data include information about the social context, court context, and diversity of the courtroom workgroup for 90 federal judicial districts provided by 50 judicial district context variables.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25423.v1
case processingicpsrlabor forceicpsrraceicpsrrace relationsicpsrsentencingicpsrcourt casesicpsrcourt systemicpsrcourtroom proceedingsicpsrcourtsicpsrdistrict courtsicpsrfederal courtsicpsrjudicial decisionsicpsrjusticeicpsrNACJD IV. Court Case ProcessingRCMD I. CrimeICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemWard, GeoffFarrell, AmyRousseau, DanielleInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)25423Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25423.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR03382MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150331s2002 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR03382MiAaIMiAaI
Impact Evaluation of the Felony Domestic Violence Court in Kings County [Brooklyn], New York, 1994-2000
[electronic resource]
Lisa Newmark
,
Mike Rempel
,
Kelly Diffily
,
Kamala Mallik Kane
2006-07-13Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]2002ICPSR3382NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-31.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
the defendant, whether
the victim attempted to drop charges, whether the victim testified at
trial, whether a victim advocate was assigned, total violations during
pending case, predisposition violations, and number of probation
violations. Demographic variables in Part 1 include defendant and
victims' gender, race, victim age at defendant's arrest, defendant's
income, employment status, and education. Variables in Part 2, Top
Charge Data, relating to the defendant include number and types of
prior arrests and convictions, top charge at arrest, severity of top
charge at arrest, top charge at grand jury indictment, severity of top
charge indictment, disposition details, Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
arrest indicators, child victim conviction indicator, drug conviction
indicator, weapon conviction indicator, types of probation, sentence,
disposition, and offenses. Demographic variables in Part 2 include sex
and race of the defendant.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03382.v2
arrest recordsicpsrcase processingicpsrcourt casesicpsrcourtsicpsrdomestic violenceicpsrfamily courtsicpsrfelony offensesicpsrprogram evaluationicpsrrecidivismicpsrrestraining ordersicpsrsentencingicpsrNACJD V. CourtsICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD XIII. Violence Against WomenNewmark, LisaRempel, MikeDiffily, KellyKane, Kamala MallikInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)3382Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03382.v2 nmm 22 4500ICPSR06481MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150331s1997 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR06481MiAaIMiAaI
National Assessment Program Survey of Criminal Justice Agencies in the United States, 1992-1994
[electronic resource]
J. Thomas McEwen
2005-11-04Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1997ICPSR6481NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-31.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The National Assessment Program (NAP) Survey was conducted
to determine the needs and problems of state and local criminal
justice agencies. At the local level in each sampled county, survey
questionnaires were distributed to police chiefs of the largest city,
sheriffs, jail administrators, prosecutors, public defenders, chief
trial court judges, trial court administrators (where applicable), and
probation and parole agency heads. Data were collected at the state
level through surveys sent to attorneys general, commissioners of
corrections, prison wardens, state court administrators, and directors
of probation and parole. For the 1992-1994 survey, 13 separate
questionnaires were used. Police chiefs and sheriffs received the same
survey instruments, with a screening procedure employed to identify
sheriffs who handled law enforcement responsibilities. Of the 411
counties selected, 264 counties also employed trial court
administrators. Judges and trial court administrators received
identical survey instruments. A total of 546 surveys were mailed to
probation and parole agencies, with the same questions asked of state
and local officers. Counties that had separate agencies for probation
and parole were sent two surveys. All survey instruments were divided
into sections on workload (except that the wardens, jail
administrators, and corrections commissioners were sent a section on
jail use and crowding instead), staffing, operations and procedures,
and background. The staffing section of each survey queried
respondents on recruitment, retention, training, and number of
staff. The other sections varied from instrument to instrument, with
questions tailored to the responsibilities of the particular
agency. Most of the questionnaires asked about use of automated
information systems, programs, policies, or aspects of the facility or
security needing improvement, agency responsibilities and
jurisdictions, factors contributing to workload increases, budget,
number of fulltime employees and other staff, and contracted
services. Questions specific to police chiefs and sheriffs included
activities aimed at drug problems and whether they anticipated
increases in authorized strength in officers. Jail administrators,
corrections commissioners, and wardens were asked about factors
contributing to jail crowding, alternatives to jail, medical services
offered, drug testing and drug-related admissions, and inmate
classification. Topics covered by the surveys for prosecutors, public
defenders, judges, and state and trial court administrators included
types of cases handled, case timeliness, diversion and sentencing
alternatives, and court and jury management. State and local probation
and parole agency directors were asked about diagnostic tools,
contracted services, and drug testing. Attorneys general were queried
about operational issues, statutory authority, and legal services and
support provided to state and local criminal justice agencies.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06481.v1
case processingicpsrcorrections managementicpsrcourtsicpsrcriminal justice systemicpsrinformation systemsicpsrlaw enforcement agenciesicpsrneeds assessmenticpsrpolice recruitsicpsrpolice trainingicpsrpolicies and proceduresicpsrprisonsicpsrsentencingicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD VI. Criminal Justice SystemMcEwen, J. ThomasInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)6481Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06481.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR09508MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150331s1991 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR09508MiAaIMiAaI
National Pretrial Reporting Program, 1988-1989
[electronic resource]
Pretrial Services Resource Center
2013-06-12Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1991ICPSR9508NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-31.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This data collection effort was undertaken to determine
whether accurate and comprehensive pretrial data can be collected at
the local level and subsequently aggregated at the state and federal
levels. The data contained in this collection provide a picture of
felony defendants' movements through the criminal courts. Offenses were
recoded into 14 broad categories that conform to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics' crime definitions. Other variables include sex, race, age,
prior record, relationship to criminal justice system at the time of
the offense, pretrial release, detention decisions, court appearances,
pretrial rearrest, adjudication, and sentencing. The unit of analysis
is the defendant.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09508.v3
case processingicpsrcourtsicpsrcriminal historiesicpsrcriminal justice systemicpsrdefendantsicpsrdisposition (legal)icpsrfelonsicpsrfelony courtsicpsroffensesicpsrpretrial detentionsicpsrpretrial hearingsicpsrpretrial proceduresicpsrpretrial releaseicpsrsentencingicpsrNACJD IV. Court Case ProcessingICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemPretrial Services Resource CenterInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)9508Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09508.v3 nmm 22 4500ICPSR06136MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150331s1993 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR06136MiAaIMiAaI
National Pretrial Reporting Program, 1990-1991
[electronic resource]
Pretrial Services Resource Center
2011-04-20Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1993ICPSR6136NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-31.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This data collection effort was undertaken to determine
whether accurate and comprehensive pretrial data can be collected at
the local level and subsequently aggregated at the state and federal
levels. The data contained in this collection provide a picture of
felony defendants' movements through the criminal courts. Offenses were
recoded into 14 broad categories that conform to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics' crime definitions. Other variables include sex, race, age,
prior record, relationship to criminal justice system at the time of
the offense, pretrial release, detention decisions, court appearances,
pretrial rearrest, adjudication, and sentencing. The unit of analysis
is the defendant.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06136.v1
case processingicpsrcourtsicpsrcriminal historiesicpsrcriminal justice systemicpsrdefendantsicpsrdisposition (legal)icpsrfelonsicpsrfelony courtsicpsroffensesicpsrpretrial detentionsicpsrpretrial hearingsicpsrpretrial proceduresicpsrpretrial releaseicpsrsentencingicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD IV. Court Case ProcessingPretrial Services Resource CenterInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)6136Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06136.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR06489MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150331s1995 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR06489MiAaIMiAaI
National Pretrial Reporting Program, 1992-1993
[electronic resource]
Pretrial Services Resource Center
2011-04-20Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1995ICPSR6489NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-31.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This data collection effort was undertaken to determine
whether accurate and comprehensive pretrial data can be collected at
the local level and subsequently aggregated at the state and federal
levels. The data contained in this collection provide a picture of
felony defendants' movements through the criminal courts. The
1992-1993 National Pretrial Reporting Program database includes cases
filed in May 1992 that were tracked through April 1993. Offenses were
recoded into 15 broad categories that conformed to the Bureau of
Justice Statistics' crime definitions. Other variables include sex,
race, age, prior criminal record, relationship to the criminal justice
system at the time of the offense, pretrial release, detention
decisions, court appearances, pretrial rearrest, adjudication, and
sentencing. The unit of analysis is the defendant.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06489.v1
case processingicpsrcourtsicpsrcriminal historiesicpsrcriminal justice systemicpsrdefendantsicpsrdisposition (legal)icpsrfelonsicpsrfelony courtsicpsroffensesicpsrpretrial detentionsicpsrpretrial hearingsicpsrpretrial proceduresicpsrpretrial releaseicpsrsentencingicpsrNACJD IV. Court Case ProcessingICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemPretrial Services Resource CenterInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)6489Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06489.v1 nmm 22 4500ICPSR09094MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150331s1989 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR09094MiAaIMiAaI
Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1986
[electronic resource]Indianapolis, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Portland, St. Louis, and Washington, DC
Barbara Boland
2006-03-30Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1989ICPSR9094NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-31.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
This data collection represents the sixth in a series of
statistical reports sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The
purpose of the series is to provide statistical information on how
prosecutors and the courts dispose of criminal cases involving adults
arrested for felony crimes. With this purpose in mind, information was
collected on items such as an individual's arrest date, sentencing
date, court charge, and case disposition.
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09094.v3
arrest recordsicpsrcase processingicpsrcourt casesicpsrcourtsicpsrdisposition (legal)icpsrfelony offensesicpsrprosecuting attorneysicpsrsentencingicpsrRCMD I. CrimeNACJD IV. Court Case ProcessingICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemBoland, BarbaraInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)9094Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09094.v3 nmm 22 4500ICPSR09844MiAaIm f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu150331s1993 miu f a eng d(MiAaI)ICPSR09844MiAaIMiAaI
Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining in Federal Criminal Courts in the United States, 1983-1990
[electronic resource]
United States Sentencing Commission
2000-06-05Ann Arbor, Mich.Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]1993ICPSR9844NumericTitle from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2015-03-31.AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.Also available as downloadable files.
The primary purpose of this data collection was to study
whether prosecutorial behavior was affected by the implementation of
federal criminal sentencing guidelines in 1987. Monthly time series
data were constructed on a number of prosecutorial outcomes,
representing either discrete decision steps in the processing of
criminal cases or the characteristics of cases that passed through the
system. Variables include disposition year and month, number of matters
initiated, number of cases filed, declined, and dismissed, number of
convictions by trial, by jury, and by bench trial, number of guilty
pleas, ratio of guilty pleas to cases resolved, and ratio of trials to
cases resolved. The collection also provides a series of dichotomous
variables to assess the impact of various events on prosecutorial
outcomes over time. These events include the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1986 (effective November 1986), implementation of the sentencing
guidelines (November 1987), Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (November
1988), United States Supreme Court's decision in the Minstretta case
affirming the constitutionality of the sentencing guidelines (January
1989), and Attorney General Thornburgh's memo outlining Justice
Department policy on charging and prosecution (March 1989).
Cf.: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09844.v1
case dismissalicpsrcase processingicpsrcourt casesicpsrcourtsicpsrdisposition (legal)icpsrguilty pleasicpsrplea negotiationsicpsrpleasicpsrpolicies and proceduresicpsrprosecutionicpsrsentencingicpsrICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice SystemNACJD V. CourtsUnited States Sentencing CommissionInter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.ICPSR (Series)9844Access restricted ; authentication may be required:http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09844.v1